From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pope Honorius II.

The papal election of February 14, 1130 was
convoked after the death of Pope Honorius II and resulted in a
double election. Part of the cardinals, led by
Cardinal-Chancellor Aymeric de la Chatre, elected Gregorio
Papareschi as Pope Innocent II, but the rest of them
refused to recognize him and elected Cardinal Pietro Pierleoni, who
took the name of Anacletus II. Although Anacletus had the
support of the majority of the cardinals, the Catholic Church
considers Innocent II as the legitimate Pope, and Anacletus II as
Antipope.

The double election was a result of the growing tensions inside
the College of Cardinals concerning
the policy of the Holy See
towards the Holy Roman Empire, initiated by the
Concordat
of Worms (1122), which ended the investiture controversy. Several,
particularly older, cardinals considered the compromise achieved in
Worms as
desertion of the principles of the Gregorian Reform, and inclined to
accept it only as a tactical move. They supported the traditional
alliance of the Papacy with the Normans in southern Italy. Some of them were
connected to old monastic centers in Southern Italy such as Montecassino. One of their leaders was
Cardinal Pierleoni, representative of one of the most powerful
families of Rome.[1]

The opposite faction was headed by Aymeric de la Chatre, who was
named cardinal and chancellor of the Holy See shortly after signing
the Concordat of Worms and was one of the main architects of the
new policy. He and his adherents looked at the compromise as a good
solution both for the Church and the Emperor, and did not trust the
Norman vassals of the Holy See, who expressed some expansionist
tendencies. It seems that at least some major representatives of
this faction had strong connections to the "new spirituality",
meaning the new religious orders such as regular canons.
Besides, they were allied with the Roman family of Frangipani,
opponents of the Pierleoni family.[2]

In the last weeks of the lifetime of Pope Honorius II the
cardinals, fearing the possible schism, made an agreement that the
new pope would be elected by the commission of eight of them,
including two cardinal-bishops, three cardinal-priests and three
cardinal-deacons.[3]

Preparations for the
election

Both parties of the College of Cardinals were of almost an equal
size. The party of Aymeric had 19 members, while that of his
opponents 24,[11] but
the party of the Chancellor was certainly better organized.[12]

One of the undeniable aspects of that division is that the
Anacletans were mainly older cardinals, veterans of the investiture
controversy, created either by Paschalis II or early in the
pontificate of Callixtus II, while Innocentine cardinals with few
exceptions were created after Concordat of Worms (1122), which
established peace with the Emperor. Out of nineteen cardinals
created before 1122, only five supported the Chancellor, while out
of twenty four appointed from that time onwards as many as
fourteen.[13] The
other possible reasons for such radical tensions in the College
(e.g. national divisions, connections to different spiritual
centres) are widely discussed by historians without final
conclusion.[14]

In the elected committee the party of Aymeric had 5 members out
8. This was due to the way of their election – each of the three
cardinalatial orders had to elect their own representatives.
Although adherents of Aymeric were in the minority in the whole
College, they had a majority among cardinal-bishops and
cardinal-deacons, while their opponents were mainly
cardinal-priests.[15]
Therefore, the faction of the Chancellor acquired a majority in the
electoral body[16]

The church of S. Maria Nuova (today S. Francesca Romana) — the
titular deaconry of chancellor Aymeric and the place of
consecration of Innocent II

The following cardinals were elected to the committee (the
opponents of Aymeric are denoted with †):[17]

Cardinal-Bishops (two adherents of Aymeric)

Guillaume, Bishop of Palestrina

Corrado della Suburra, Bishop of Sabina

Cardinal-Priests (two opponents and one adherent of Aymeric)

Pietro Pierleoni, O.S.B.Cluny, Priest of S. Maria in Trastevere
†

Pietro Pisano, Priest of S. Susanna †

Pietro Ruffino, Priest of SS. Silvestro e Martino

Cardinal-Deacons (two adherents and one opponent of Aymeric)

Gregorio Papareschi, C.R.L., Deacon of S. Angelo in
Pescheria

Aymeric de la Chatre, C.R.S.M.R., Deacon of S. Maria Nuova and
Chancellor of the Holy See

Gionata, Deacon of SS. Cosma e Damiano †

Death of
Honorius II and the election of Innocent II

Honorius II died in the night 13/14 February 1130 in the Roman
monastery of S. Gregorio, after a long illness. Cardinal Aymeric
arranged a hasty burial there and immediately called the members of
the committee to the monastery to proceed for the election of a new
pope. But Cardinals Pierleoni and Gionata, realising that the
commission certainly would elect an supporter of the Chancellor,
withdrew from it hoping that a lack of quorum would prevent it from functioning.[18] But
Aymeric ignored this fact and the commission assembled with six
members only. Despite the protests of Cardinal Pietro Pisano, who
was a distinguished canonist, the committee elected one of its
members, Cardinal Gregorio Papareschi of S. Angelo, who accepted
the election and took the name Innocent II.[19] He
was enthroned in the Lateran Basilica
early in the morning on February 14.[20] His
election was almost immediately recognized by six other cardinals:
two bishops (Giovanni of Ostia and Mathieu of Albano) and four
priests (Joselmo of S. Cecilia, Petrus of S. Anastasia and Giovanni
of S. Crisogono; the identity of the fourth one is uncertain, but
most probably it was Gerardo of S. Croce).[21] In a
short time they were joined also by the next eight cardinals.

The
election of Anacletus II

Basilica of S. Marco, the place of the election of Anacletus
II.

The majority of the cardinals, however, did not recognize
Innocent II under the influence of Pietro Pisano, who, as a
distinguished canonist, declared that his election was invalid.[22] On
February 14 in the morning the opponents of Aymeric and his
candidate assembled under the leadership of Pietro Pierleoni in the
church of S. Marco to elect the new Pope. Initially,
Cardinal Pierleoni proposed the election of the Dean of the College
Pietro Senex of Porto, but he refused to accept the papal dignity.
Then the cardinals unanimously elected Pierleoni himself, who took
the name of Anacletus II.[23]

It is not known how many cardinals elected Anacletus II. The
decree proclaiming his election issued on the same day was
subscribed by 14 cardinals:[24]

To them certainly should be added Archpriest of the College
Bonifazio of S. Marco, because the election was held in his titular
church,[25] and
the elect, Cardinal Pierleoni himself. It is not known whether the
remaining four adherents of Pierleoni, who are believed to have
been present at Rome, participated in the electoral
proceedings.[26] There
is no doubt, however, that the lesser clergy of Rome was
represented in the election. The electoral decree of Anacletus II
bears the subscriptions of some of them, including Subdeacon
Gregorio, primicerius scholae cantorum, who was appointed
Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Aquiro the following February 21,
and Rainiero, Archpriest of the Patriarchal Liberian Basilica.[27]

Division of the College
of Cardinals

The double election resulted with the open split of the College
of Cardinals into two parties. Their compositions can be
established in the following way:

Liber
Pontificalis mentions the names of 16 cardinals who supported
Innocent II from the very beginning.[28] To
them should be added two other cardinals (Guido of Tivoli and
Rustico of S. Ciriaco), whose attitude is attested by the fact that
they subscribed the bulls of Innocent II.[29]
Finally, among the signatories of the bull of Innocent II dated
April 3, 1130 appears one new Cardinal, Pietro of S. Marco,[30] who
was certainly created only after the election, because the title of
S. Marco had been occupied by Cardinal-Protpriest Bonifazio, the
adherent of Antipope Anacletus II. The most probable date of his
creation is February 21, a Friday of the ember week.[31]

The obedience of Anacletus II may be reconstructed basing on
the letter addressed to king Lothair III of Germany by his
cardinals soon after his coronation.[32] This
letter bears the subscriptions of 27 cardinals, including five
created by Anacletus II on February 21. To them should be added
also cardinal Oderisio of S. Agata, who later subscribed the bulls
issued by Anacletus II.[33]

Therefore, at the beginning of the schism 19 cardinals belonged
to the College of Innocent II, and 28 to the College of Anacletus
II.

The Innocentine cardinals, who are not mentioned by Liber
Pontificalis, and the Anacletan, who did not subscribe the
letter to king Lothair, are denoted with †.

Stefano Stornato joined the obedience of Innocent II no later
than 1132; Lectifredo of S. Vitale[34] and
Giovanni Dauferio[35] did
the same in 1133, Pietro Pisano in 1137,[36] and
Desiderio of S. Prassede shortly before the end of the schism in
1138.[37] It
seems that ca. 1135 Comes of S. Sabina also abandoned Anacletus
II[38].

The
schism

Both popes were consecrated and crowned on the same day,
February 23. Innocent II received episcopal consecration from
Cardinal Giovanni of Ostia in the church S.
Maria Nuova, the titular deaconry of Chancellor Aymeric.
Anacletus II was consecrated by Cardinal Pietro of Porto in the Vatican Basilica, which means that
Anacletus took the advantage in the city from the very beginning.
Almost all Roman aristocracy (with the significant exception of the
Frangipani family), the majority of the lesser clergy and the
people of Rome recognized Anacletus II and at the end of May
Innocent II had to flee to France.[39] After
his defection to France even the Frangipani submitted to
Anacletus.

In France, however, Innocent II found a strong ally in the
person of Bernard of Clairvaux. Under
Bernard’s influence, almost all European monarchs and episcopates
recognized the exiled Innocent II. Anacletus II, although he
controlled Rome and the Patrimony of St. Peter, received the
support only of the Normans of southern Italy, Scotland, Aquitaine, some cities in northern Italy
(incl. Milan), and perhaps Outremer[40] and
probably also Poland.[41]

Both elections were irregular, because they contradicted the
rules established by the decree In Nomine
Domini in 1059, but both sides defended the legality of
the respective pontificates. The adherents of Anacletus argued that
he was elected by the majority of the cardinals, lower clergy and
the people of Rome. The partisans of Innocent II answered that
Innocent II was elected by majority of the cardinal-bishops, who
according to the decree In Nomine Domini
had to play the preeminent role in the election. Their opponents
answered with another version of the decree (false, but very
popular at the time), which stated that the pope was elected by
"cardinals" (meaning cardinal-priests and deacons), while
cardinal-bishops could only express their approval or disapproval.
Both parties used, by analogy, the Benedictine rule, which stated that in the
case of a double election for abbot, the valid election was the one
made by "the sounder part" (sanior pars) of the electors –
but there was no consensus which part of the College was "sounder"
in this case.[42]

Decisive for the verdict about the legality of both pontificates
were not the legal arguments, but the attitude of the Catholic
world, which had almost universally recognized Innocent II.[43] His
main supporters were Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, Archbishop of
Magdeburg Norbert of Xanten and King Lothair
III of Germany. The few secular lords who had initially supported
Anacletus gradually abandoned his cause as lost; only King Roger II of
Sicily, who had received the crown from Anacletus in exchange
for support, stood at his side to the very end. Although Anacletus
II was able to retain the control of the city of Rome and the
Patrimony of St. Peter until his death in January 1138, his
successor quickly made his submission to Innocent II, who is now
regarded as true Pope.[44]

References

^
The College of Cardinals is reconstructed according to Klewitz, p.
211–229; Hüls, p. 84 ff; and Brixius, p. 17–19, 31–40. The one
disputed cardinal is Enrico of S. Prisca (Klewitz, p. 211 note 3
denies that he was already a cardinal at the time of the election;
Hüls, p. 200 says only that he appears for the first time on
February 14, 1130 among signatories of the electoral decree of
Anacletus but does not indicate by which pope he had been created;
Brixius, p. 35 no. 19 lists him among the members of the Sacred
College on the death of Honorius II but adds that he may have been
created by Anacletus II). Brixius, p. 39 no. 38 lists also the 44th
cardinal, Petrus, priest of S. Eusebio and adherent of Anacletus
II, but see Klewitz, p. 211-212 note 3, and Brixius’ own remarks,
op. cit., p. 18–19 and 82. Chroust, p. 352, also says that
Petrus of S. Eusebio belonged to the College at the time of the
election and identifies him with cardinal-deacon Petrus of S. Maria
in Via Lata under Honorius II, but this identification is
undoubtedly erroneous (see Hüls, p. 239).

^
Klewitz, p. 217, and Brixius, p. 39 no. 42, count Sigizo among the
creations of Paschalis II. Hüls, p. 64 and 86, indicates that he
was created only by Callixtus II in 1120, basing on his place in
the order of seniority that can be assumed from the order of the
cardinalatial subscriptions on the papal bulls. The only evidence
for his creation by Paschalis II is Liber Pontificalis, which mentions
him among the participants of papal election, 1118; however, it has
been proven that this account contains several inaccuracies (Hüls,
p. 63–64, see also Klewitz's own remarks, op. cit., p.
100). Bloch, p. 950, note 3, seems to accept that Sigizo was
created by Paschalis II.

^
This identification, though accepted by Brixius, p. 32 no. 8, and
Klewitz, p. 214, is impossible because Comes of S. Maria in Aquiro
subscribed papal bulls until February 6, 1126 (Hüls, p. 231; Jaffé,
p. 823), while Comes of S. Sabina appears for the first time on
April 15, 1123 (Hüls, p. 205, Jaffé, p. 781).

^
This is according to Klewitz, p. 211 note 3, and Bloch, p. 948.
However, it is rather unlikely because Enrico of S. Prisca signed
as cardinal the electoral decree of Anacletus on February 14, the
same day that Anacletus had been elected, which would mean that he
must have been created immediately after his election. It is not
impossible, but it seems more reasonable to accept the year 1129 as
date of his creation as cardinal of S. Prisca, given by S. Miranda
The Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church and by Chroust, p. 351 (his predecessor Gerardus
of S. Prisca died in April 1129). It must be added, however, that
his identification with Cardinal-Deacon Enrico de Mazara of S.
Teodoro, proposed by Chroust, p. 351, is certainly erroneous, as
has been proved by Klewitz, p. 211 note 3.

^
This is according to Brixius, p. 39–40 no. 43; Chroust, p. 351-352;
Salvador Miranda: The Cardinals of the Holy
Roman Church - Consistory of 1125 (no. 5); and Lorenzo
Cardella, Memorie storiche de' Cardinali
della Santa Romana Chiesa, vol. 1 pt. 1, p. 289. All these
sources say that Anacletus II promoted him to the title of S.
Lorenzo in Damaso, and that no later than 1132 he joined the
obedience of Innocent II, who annulled this promotion. Klewitz, p.
219 note 38 explicitly denies this statement and counts him among
Innocentine cardinals. Bloch, p. 950 note 2 says that he "almost
certainly" belonged to Innocentine party and suggests that he may
have been absent from the election. Hüls, p. 228-229 says only in
general that during the subsequent schism he supported Innocent II
and adds that some authors mention his short episode in the
obedience of Anacletus II. Cardinal Stefano of S. Lucia is attested
in the obedience of Innocent II only from June 25, 1132 (Jaffé, p.
841); therefore, his identification with Anacletan Cardinal Stefano
of S. Lorenzo in Damaso (attested only in 1130) seems to be quite
likely.

^
For the absence of Gilles of Tusculum, Guido of Tivoli, Amico and
Oderisio see Bloch, p. 949 and p. 950 note 2. For the legation of
Uberto see Klewitz, p. 224 and 250, and Hüls, p. 162. For the
legation of Rustico, see Hüls, p. 158. The absence of Oderisio,
Rustico and Guido of Tivoli is mentioned also by Brixius, p.
19.

^
Robinson, p. 74–75 suggests even that the opponents of the
Chancellor formed themeselves into one party only during the
election

^
The division of the College of Cardinals based on accounts in
Klewitz, p. 211–229, and Brixius, p. 17–19 with corrections
concerning the date of creation of Comes of S. Sabina. The question
of the cardinalate of Enrico of S. Prisca and the initial attitude
of Stefano Stornato is presented according to Brixius, while that
of cardinalate of Pietro of S. Eusebio according to Klewitz. See
also Bloch, p. 946–950, who essentially follows Klewitz. For the
party of Anacletus II see also Chroust, p. 348–355

^
Bloch, p. 946, who does not identify the fourth cardinal-priest.
Gerardo of S. Croce seems to be the most likely one because he was
named legate of Innocent II in Germany already on February 18, see
Patrologia Latina. Volumen
179, col. 53-54 no. I-II. The other possibility is Anselmo of
S. Lorenzo in Lucina.

^
It seems that organization of the papal election was a customary
task of a cardinal-protopriest, see Robinson, p. 60–61. The
important role of Bonifazio in the election of Cardinal Pierleoni
is indirectly attested by the fact that Innocent II within the few
weeks after the election appointed a new Cardinal-Priest of S.
Marco, although Bonifazio was still alive. Other cardinals who
joined Anacletus seem not to have been deposed by Innocent II, at
least not so quickly. See Brixius, p. 19-20.

^
For the dates of creations of the new cardinals see Brixius, p.
7–15

^
The letter is included in Regesta Imperii. Its
exact date is uncertain, though undoubtedly after the creation of
five new cardinals on February 21. Regesta Imperii gives
the date of May 15–18, 1130. Hüls, passim, gives February
1130. Brixius, p. 77–78, suggests the date between February 21 and
March 27, because cardinal Giovanni Dauferio still appears in this
letter as deacon of S. Nicola, while on March 27 he signed the bull
as priest of S. Pudenziana. Bloch, p. 949 indicates that the letter
was written in May 1130 and puts into question the identity of
Giovanni Dauferio of S. Nicola with Giovanni of S. Pudenziana;
however, he does not explain the absence of the name of Giovanni of
S. Pudenziana from the letter to king Lothair III.

^
Bloch, p. 49; and Brixius, p. 18–19 (Brixius indicates that only
four cardinal-deacons were newly created, while Bloch says that as
many as seven cardinals belonged to that category, adding Enrico of
S. Prisca and probably Stefano of S. Lorenzo, though without
mentioning the name of the latter one); see also Jaffé, p.
911-912.

^
He is attested in the obedience of Innocent II from December 21,
1133 until May 18, 1140 (Jaffé, p. 840; Brixius, p. 36 no. 27).
According to Brixius, p. 36 no. 27 and p. 48 no. 10, Lectifredo was
deposed by Anacletus already in 1130, because on December 5 and
December 10, 1130 the bulls of Antipope were subscribed by cardinal
Matteo of S. Vitale. However, Jaffé, p. 911-912 does not mention
this cardinal on the list of subscribers of the bulls of Anacletus.
It seems that Brixius misread this list, because in Jaffé, p. 912
there is a cardinal-priest Matteo listed next to Lectifredo of S.
Vitale as subscriber of the bulls on December 5 and 10, 1130, but
he is certainly not assigned to the title of S. Vitale, but listed
as cardinal-priest without the title. Both these bulls (Jaffé, p.
917 no. 8417 and 8419) are published in Patrologia Latina. Volumen
179, col. 717-719, though with inaccurate dates; among their
signatories appears Matthaeus, presbiter et cardinalis,
without the titular church, so Brixius' statement can be almost
certainly rejected as erroneous.

^
He subscribed the bulls of Innocent II on December 21, 1133 and
January 11, 1134 as deacon of S. Nicola in Carcere (Jaffé, p. 841);
later, he was promoted again to the title of S. Pudenziana by
Innocent II (Brixius, p. 35–36 no. 24).

^
He subscribed the bulls of Innocent II only after the end of the
schism in 1138, but already ca. 1135/37 Anacletus II appointed new
cardinal-priest of S. Sabina, which indicates that up to that time
Comes must have been deposed by antipope (Brixius, p. 32 no. 8 and
p. 47 no. 2).